As Tim Carney and I argue, with Michael Barone in agreement, Texas Gov. Rick Perry handed in an adequate performance in last night’s debate. But I think he showed some very serious weaknesses that neither Republican voters nor Perry himself should overlook.
Perry’s problem is mostly one of tone and of lack of preparation — possibly unavoidable, but also possibly because of his staff. I saw three areas last night where he needs to change or at least polish his message if he wants to become the clear frontrunner.
Recommended Stories
Social Security: Perry’s first big messaging blunder is his constant return to the phrase “Ponzi Scheme” to describe Social Security. That’s not to say the characterization is inaccurate, or that he should back down on it. It’s just that he should explain it more thoughtfully without using the phrase as a crutch.
Social Security does resemble a Ponzi scheme in that the people at the bottom of the pyramid (that is, people like myself who plan to retire around 2040) will get little or nothing from the program after paying in for decades — and that’s under current law. Social Security was designed before television and before “fascism” was a dirty word. It was designed for a different era and is hopelessly outdated now.
But as much as I like to hear a dose of the sharp truth, “Ponzi Scheme” is not the best way to discuss Social Security. Perry would do far better to do what other GOP pioneers in this area have done, and stick to the basics. First, emphasize that he won’t mess with anyone over 55. Second, lay out ideas about what he wants to put in place for people my age. (The Chilean model, which Herman Cain invoked, is one of the best ideas for this, although there are others.) Perry should also avoid the trap George W. Bush fell into on Social Security. Don’t talk about the system’s solvency, but about all the wealth that it is locking up, never to be invested in American businesses. Talk about how those paying in could well end up passing a mere fraction of their lifelong contributions to their children. A modern, defined-contribution pension system could turn today’s uneducated day-laborers into the parents of tomorrow’s college-educated professionals.
Global Warming: When asked about global warming, Perry gave what amounts to the beginnings of the right answer:
The first problem here came with the immediate follow-up, when Perry was asked which scientists’ ideas he found most compelling. Perry could have pointed to the three scientists in this Wall Street Journal piece, who are by no means “right-wing” or “climate skeptics.” As it happens, climatology is moving in Perry’s direction. I’m sure he has plenty on his plate with half of Texas burning, but his inability to cite an article from yesterday’s Journal is a sign that his campaign staff served him poorly.
Still, there is a deeper problem with Perry’s answer. No layman — let alone a presidential candidate — should put himself in the position of judging scientific questions. What Perry should discuss is the area of climate change theory where there exists neither real nor imagined consensus — namely its effects, which no serious person claims to understand (even if lots of unserious people blame it for every hurricane, earthquake, and Redskins loss). What he should say is, “Whatever contribution man makes to Climate Change, the burden is on you to show me that its effects are more destructive than those of shutting down half of America’s power plants.” As an authority here, he can talk about Bjørn Lomborg.
‘I come from Texas’ Republican primary voters know all they need to about Perry’s coyote-shooting, Texas swaggering ways. Now he needs to show them — and general election voters — that he’s more than just a brighter version of George W. Bush.
Perry needs to study the above issues and others, at the very least to come up with better responses. He still has plenty of time.
